SB 36-U OF A REGENTS REPORTING REQUIREMENTS  4:39:33 PM VICE CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the final order of business would be CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 36(EDC), "An Act relating to reporting requirements of the Board of Regents of the University of Alaska." 4:40:07 PM TIM LAMKIN, Staff, Senator Gary Stevens, Alaska State Legislature, introduced CSSB 36(EDC), on behalf of Senator Stevens, prime sponsor. He paraphrased the sponsor statement [included in the committee packet], which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: Senate Bill 36 is introduced in response to the revocation of accreditation of the University of Alaska-Anchorage School of Education in 2019. One thought as to how the failure occurred includes the idea that perhaps not enough Alaskans were aware of the problems leading up to it. Establishing a reporting requirement on the subject of UA system-wide accreditation is an effort toward improved communication and awareness, the intent being to help avoid seeing such an unexpected accreditation loss from happening again. Other reporting requirements have been installed and proven effective for the University of Alaska to maintain clear lines of communication with the Alaska Legislature. Including a biennial report on the status of the UA's accreditations seems timely and appropriate. Thank you for your consideration of this important policy proposal. 4:41:40 PM PAUL LAYER, PhD, Vice President, Academics, Students, & Research, University of Alaska, relayed that the Board of Regents, which governed the University of Alaska, took its oversight of accreditation very seriously. He explained that the board would receive annual reports from both the chancellor and the president on accreditation status to avoid the communication breakdown that occurred in 2019. He opined that the board took the public and the legislature's comments to heart regarding responsibility for accreditation. He assured the committee that reports on finances and future programs would be provided to the board, as provided under current statute, in addition to biennial updates on accreditation to the legislature. He welcomed questions from committee members. 4:43:52 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN inquired about the word "remediate" on page 2, line 15 of the bill. 4:44:59 PM DR. LAYER noted that the Board of Regents had adopted similar language in its current policy to allow for different scenarios regarding accreditation. He asserted that the proposed legislation would similarly allow for the scenarios described by Representative Eastman, such as choosing not to pursue reaccreditation were it to lapse. MR. LAMKIN responded that in the instances described by Representative Eastman, the plan outlined in the report could state that there was no plan. 4:46:47 PM VICE CHAIR CLAMAN observed that the loss of accreditation was a massive break in communication. He characterized the incident [in 2019] as troubling and sad. He described the proposed legislation as a checklist to ensure that such events would never occur again. REPRESENTATIVE STORY described the measure as an accountability measure in response to the loss in accreditation. She stated her support for the bill. 4:48:09 PM The committee took a brief at-ease at 4:48 p.m. 4:49:36 PM REPRESENTATIVE TARR pointed out that [in Section 1], the biennial report would be submitted to the House Chief Clerk's Office and the Senate Secretary's Office to ensure that delays in the organization of either body would not prevent the report from being delivered. 4:50:33 PM MR. LAMKIN characterized Representative Tarr's summation of Section 1 as "reasonable." He explained that Section 1 was a result of the report being sent to the House Education Standing Committee during a year in which the Alaska House of Representatives had not yet organized, which created confusion. Therefore, consistent with other statutory reports, the bill clarified that the biennial report shall be submitted to the House Chief Clerk's Office and the Senate Secretary's Office in addition to being presented to the education committees. 4:51:38 PM VICE CHAIR CLAMAN, referencing the language on page 2, lines 1-4 of the bill, asked why the report must be presented to the legislative committees on education if it was also being delivered to the legislature via the House Chief Clerk's Office and the Senate Secretary's Office. MR. LAMKIN clarified that the bill distinguished between deliverance to the legislature and reporting to the "legislative committees having jurisdiction over education" to ensure that the report would be completed in a timely manner and communicated to the legislature via legislative hearings. 4:52:49 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN sought to confirm that a committee chair would be responsible for scheduling a hearing on such a topic. He suggested that the chair could choose not to prioritize the presentation. MR. LAMKIN supposed that the question could apply to a number of statutory provisions, such as confirmation hearings. He said the language could be loosened at the committee's discretion; however, it was included to ensure that a lapse in accreditation never occurred again. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN expressed reticence to the provision in question. 4:54:42 PM MR. LAMKIN reminded the committee that the report would be given once every other year. VICE CHAIR CLAMAN announced that CSSB 36(EDC) was held over.